Apple files motion to dismiss Department of Justice’s antitrust suit. Apple contends that the Department of Justice’s complaint fails to satisfy the statutory prerequisites necessary to establish a breach of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, warranting its dismissal.
The company’s growth is a direct result of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit, which alleged that the move could stifle innovation and limit customer choice by denying them the competitive edge that makes iPhones so appealing.
Within the submitting, Apple writes:
Ultimately, the matter is brought to a close by long-standing antitrust laws and regulations. The court should deny the government’s request to create a novel interpretation of antitrust liability by stretching five isolated instances of Apple design choices that do not harm mobile competition, and instead stick to established legal precedents. To the extent that the authorities aims to leverage these five examples as a pretext to seize sweeping authority over Apple’s design choices more broadly, the lawsuit appears increasingly tenuous. If such a broad regulation were adopted, it could stifle innovation and potentially deny customers access to the exclusive, private, and secure experiences that set iPhones apart from other options in the market. The grievance should be summarily dismissed.
Apple cited five specific examples in its defense against the Department of Justice’s allegations of anticompetitive behavior, including:
- Apple has imposed restrictions on how developers can classify and display mini apps within the App Store, as well as their access to Apple’s in-app purchase system.
- Apple initially had a more stringent approach, requiring game developers to submit individual apps for each streamed game, but later eased up on this policy.
- Apple deliberately restricted third-party messaging apps from utilizing the SMS protocol, preventing them from running in the background when not actively in use, accessing the iPhone’s camera, and did not port iMessage to Android platforms.
- Apple limited third-party smartwatch functionality, prohibiting them from reacting to iPhone notifications, establishing reliable Bluetooth connections, or processing messages without deactivating iMessage; it also failed to optimize the Apple Watch for seamless integration with Android devices.
- Apple has implemented restrictions on third-party digital wallet apps’ access to sensitive financial information and the NFC antenna used for tap-to-pay transactions, reserving these capabilities exclusively for Apple Wallet.
Apple provides:
“The authorities’s notion that Apple has contravened antitrust regulations by allegedly denying third-party access to the iPhone founders on the concept of black-letter antitrust law, which protects a company’s right to design and manage its own products.”
Now that Apple has filed its motion to dismiss, the ball is in Julien’s court? Neal’s evaluation of the movement will consider both perspectives, allowing him to potentially grant or deny the proposal based on his assessment of the merits and flaws presented by each side.
You’ll be able to learn Apple’s full move to dismiss under review. If the case proceeds to trial, that trial is unlikely to take place until 2027 or 2028 at the earliest.
